[FIXED v1.10] Has the "RTB no matter what" situation been changed? (Full Version)

All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> Command: Modern Operations series >> Tech Support



Message

jarraya -> [FIXED v1.10] Has the "RTB no matter what" situation been changed? (1/15/2015 10:52:43 AM)

I've been away from Command for a couple of months as I realised I was spending more time getting frustrated with little bugs than enjoying the game, so I thought I'd give it a rest come back after the update.

To the devs, great job on 1.6 update. As usual, your commitment to the game and community is admirable.

I was playing again and found that the "RTB no matter what" situation hadn't been changed. Specifically, when my aircraft is Bingo RTB I can not give it any other orders. Unassigning only works for few seconds.

I've had a trawl through the forum and tried to pick up the thread on this discussion, but it seems that despite being reported as a potential issue there still isn't agreement from the devs that this should be fixed. Just looking for a bit of clarity on this please.

I find this a mission limiting "bug" that should be addressed but if I'm told to shut up, I will.

Cheers



Sardaukar -> RE: Has the "RTB no matter what" situation been changed? (1/15/2015 11:12:24 AM)

Well..in most air forces, suicide missions are not usually encouraged. Forcing a plane to continue mission after reaching bingo fuel is basically loss of plane and possibly pilot.



jarraya -> RE: Has the "RTB no matter what" situation been changed? (1/15/2015 12:03:43 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Sardaukar

Well..in most air forces, suicide missions are not usually encouraged. Forcing a plane to continue mission after reaching bingo fuel is basically loss of plane and possibly pilot.


Not unless you have a tanker waiting for them on the return.

What prompted me in this discussion was the following situation:

I sent a strike package out to strike a target. I knew that the package would use 2/3 of their fuel getting to target. So, I place a tanker in a position to top them up on the return, within 1/3 of their fuel remaining. Top them up and they can fly home.

Under the current set up I can not send my planes beyond 1/2 their range without refueling first, despite manually being able to save the planes by correct placement of my tanker.

Why not refuel before the strike, you ask? Because I need them to get there quickly to take advantage of an opportunity rather than have them waste time refueling (example).



jarraya -> RE: Has the "RTB no matter what" situation been changed? (1/15/2015 12:04:30 PM)

I should add I found the answer in the 1.6 release notes. This hasn't been changed (I would say "fixed).



Dimitris -> RE: Has the "RTB no matter what" situation been changed? (1/15/2015 12:43:33 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: jarraya
I should add I found the answer in the 1.6 release notes. This hasn't been changed (I would say "fixed).


"Fixed" would imply a bug. A bug would imply the dev team promised A while the program does B. The behavior you desire was never promised by the devs; in fact, we have repeatedly explained why the game currently works in that regard the way it does. You can of course keep asking for your suggestion to be added/implemented, but let's be clear: It is something you want, it's not a bug to fix.

Thanks.



jarraya -> RE: Has the "RTB no matter what" situation been changed? (1/15/2015 12:50:23 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Sunburn

quote:

ORIGINAL: jarraya
I should add I found the answer in the 1.6 release notes. This hasn't been changed (I would say "fixed).


"Fixed" would imply a bug. A bug would imply the dev team promised A while the program does B. The behavior you desire was never promised by the devs; in fact, we have repeatedly explained why the game currently works in that regard the way it does. You can of course keep asking for your suggestion to be added/implemented, but let's be clear: It is something you want, it's not a bug to fix.

Thanks.


Sunburn - I fully agree with your comment. Hence I put the word "fixed" in quotes. Whilst I believe this feature detracts from the game, it works exactly as the devs want it to. Of course my request remains, and you have been clear before that there was no plan to change it. I just wanted to check and see if maybe this position had changed since and I couldn't find the answer, so I asked.

No more to say here, and thanks for the reply.




Dimitris -> RE: Has the "RTB no matter what" situation been changed? (1/15/2015 1:15:43 PM)

Nice passive-aggressive there.



mikmykWS -> RE: Has the "RTB no matter what" situation been changed? (1/15/2015 2:13:35 PM)

Not sold though. I'd rather deal with one passive aggressive Jorge rather than a ton of unhappy customers with planes that have crashed due to being out of fuel. There are a few other related issues but this is what primarily guided our decision on this. Anybody think we're wrong to think that way?

Mike




jarraya -> RE: Has the "RTB no matter what" situation been changed? (1/15/2015 3:56:20 PM)

I think the commander should be given the option to send them RTB or not. A pop up or warning would do it.

That's my vote and I'm making it clear.



Coiler12 -> RE: Has the "RTB no matter what" situation been changed? (1/15/2015 3:59:43 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: jarraya

I think the commander should be given the option to send them RTB or not. A pop up or warning would do it.

That's my vote and I'm making it clear.


Bingo means they have no choice.



jimcarravall -> RE: Has the "RTB no matter what" situation been changed? (1/15/2015 4:16:34 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: jarraya


quote:

ORIGINAL: Sardaukar

Well..in most air forces, suicide missions are not usually encouraged. Forcing a plane to continue mission after reaching bingo fuel is basically loss of plane and possibly pilot.


Not unless you have a tanker waiting for them on the return.

What prompted me in this discussion was the following situation:

I sent a strike package out to strike a target. I knew that the package would use 2/3 of their fuel getting to target. So, I place a tanker in a position to top them up on the return, within 1/3 of their fuel remaining. Top them up and they can fly home.

Under the current set up I can not send my planes beyond 1/2 their range without refueling first, despite manually being able to save the planes by correct placement of my tanker.

Why not refuel before the strike, you ask? Because I need them to get there quickly to take advantage of an opportunity rather than have them waste time refueling (example).


There are two reasons this is unsound tactics.

First is making the assumption that the combat mission won't consume more fuel than what it takes to make a round trip from the base to the combat point and 1/3d of the way home. There could be contingencies in the combat zone which consume fuel at a faster rate than what it takes to reach that zone. Don't know if it was modeled in Command, but it was an issue with Harpoon.

Second is making the assumption that the tankers will be on station for the return flight.

Though it might truncate surprise, a more sound tactical and logistical plan would be to top off the fuel tanks before reaching bingo fuel prior to combat, and having tankers stationed for the return flight as a contingency as opposed to a necessity.




jarraya -> RE: Has the "RTB no matter what" situation been changed? (1/15/2015 4:21:19 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Coiler12


quote:

ORIGINAL: jarraya

I think the commander should be given the option to send them RTB or not. A pop up or warning would do it.

That's my vote and I'm making it clear.


Bingo means they have no choice.


This would be true if the calculation for Bingo took into account that there is/isn't a tanker in the air.



mikmykWS -> RE: Has the "RTB no matter what" situation been changed? (1/15/2015 5:05:23 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: jarraya

I think the commander should be given the option to send them RTB or not. A pop up or warning would do it.

That's my vote and I'm making it clear.


Ok your vote is in[:)] We'll see how it pans out.



Primarchx -> RE: Has the "RTB no matter what" situation been changed? (1/15/2015 6:36:18 PM)

Historical accounts are rife with combat instances where a/c were in desperate need of tanking on the homeward leg due to unplanned actions. I put my vote in a while ago, but an ROE option for 'Ignores BINGO w/ Player Authorization' would be nice. However current tanker ops in Command have improved greatly, so the need for this is much less now (for me) than it was in the past.



Mini_Von -> RE: Has the "RTB no matter what" situation been changed? (1/15/2015 6:41:42 PM)

quote:

Historical accounts are rife with combat instances where a/c were in desperate need of tanking on the homeward leg due to unplanned actions. I put my vote in a while ago, but an ROE option for 'Ignores BINGO w/ Player Authorization' would be nice. However current tanker ops in Command have improved greatly, so the need for this is much less now (for me) than it was in the past.


+1



Casinn -> RE: Has the "RTB no matter what" situation been changed? (1/15/2015 6:46:35 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Primarchx

Historical accounts are rife with combat instances where a/c were in desperate need of tanking on the homeward leg due to unplanned actions. I put my vote in a while ago, but an ROE option for 'Ignores BINGO w/ Player Authorization' would be nice. However current tanker ops in Command have improved greatly, so the need for this is much less now (for me) than it was in the past.


I've rebased aircraft to a closer base (knowing I'd have no reloads there) to extend range of a mission several times. I wouldn't mind a way to set a flying tanker as a temporary "base" for that purpose. The downside is what happens if that tanker goes dry or bingo's itself.



Midcon113 -> RE: Has the "RTB no matter what" situation been changed? (1/15/2015 6:59:57 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Primarchx

Historical accounts are rife with combat instances where a/c were in desperate need of tanking on the homeward leg due to unplanned actions. I put my vote in a while ago, but an ROE option for 'Ignores BINGO w/ Player Authorization' would be nice. However current tanker ops in Command have improved greatly, so the need for this is much less now (for me) than it was in the past.


I'm down with this too.



batek688 -> RE: Has the "RTB no matter what" situation been changed? (1/15/2015 7:31:41 PM)

Ok..i'll chime in but ask this more of a logic question to any folks on here w/ actual mission planning experience. My interpretation is that the WAG is logically correct and here's why:

You have two choices: (a) strike first and refuel on way back, or (b)refuel on the way out so that you have fuel to RTB after. I'm referring to mission design not pilot choice.

If you use (a) as the simulation does you are minimizing the risk of a crash-out-of-gas situation because any number of situations could alter fuel consumption rate in the target area. The only thing you have control over is the ability to go "max conserve" as you RTB combined with the ability of an outbound tanker joining up with you in an emergency situation (2nd air refueling ala SAC missions or even the use of KA-6s off the US CVBG). Therefore, (A) minimizes aircraft/aircrew loss risk since loss of tanker does not lose strike aircraft, only the loss of the strike opportunity (strike aborts).

If you us (b) then you make it such that loss of tanker (failed rendezvous, maintenance abort, etc) resulting in the loss (potentially) of the tanker AND the strike aircraft. In addition, the tanker may have to go into harm's way if the fuel consumption of the strike aircraft in the target area were to go up (evasion, throttle settings, etc). The target may have been hit, but you lost the airframe as well which is a big negative unless you have airframes to burn (the Chinese maybe?). I'm not sure any high ranking officer views aircraft as single-target weapon systems -- not cost effective.

Thinking purely as a resource manager, (b) doesn't provide any greater capability over (a) while it does ratchet up airframe/aircrew risk (for both the strike & tanker crews/frames).



nocacounsel -> RE: Has the "RTB no matter what" situation been changed? (1/15/2015 7:50:42 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: jarraya

I think the commander should be given the option to send them RTB or not. A pop up or warning would do it.

That's my vote and I'm making it clear.


I, too, would prefer to have ultimate say as to what happens with an aircraft (which Command seems to fully encourage in every other sphere I can think of, and to its credit and with my great appreciation). As I think someone on here has joked, some people prefer to play Command as though they are controlling their money; and the amazing flexibility of the game provides for either micromanagement or a set & forget philosophy.

Because I can't ultimately override the Bingo determination, I've lost aircraft to missiles in the past (because I set auto-evasion to off to control course & speed however I know it best to be except when in Bingo); had problems planning missions I know would succeed like Jarraya; and even once had aircraft turn around when under 5nm to their weapon launch.
Of all the control I have in Command, Bingo is the kiss of death to an aircraft though I tend to think my ability to manage & plan should be what ultimately decides whether a plane makes it back to base (like it is with every other asset in Command).

The bingo protection is a pretty critical one, however, and I definitely don't wish to lose how the feature operates now at its first level (or speak against Mike's prescience) where the aircraft automatically goes back to base once bingo fuel is reached. I just sorta thought we might be able to have our cake & eat it as well by, say, pressing CTRL+U to override the Bingo feature for that particular aircraft and until the aircraft lands again (in which case the override would reset back to normal).

I also like Primarchx and Rognor's suggestsions. ( http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=3720375&mpage=1&key=� , post 3).

Thanks for considering all of this, devs.



mikmykWS -> RE: Has the "RTB no matter what" situation been changed? (1/15/2015 8:12:32 PM)

The ultimate solution is probably going on to lie with the strike editor we'd like to approach at some point. Stay tuned on this.

In general it is hard to code for every possible fringe case there is so you tend to go for the cases that are generally the norm then handle the fringe by erring on the side of caution.

If anybody has a specific issue please do post in tech support and if possible please add your file showing the issue. This keeps us focused on the problem instead of trying to figure out from a bunch of forum posts that range from spot on to out in left field.

Finally. If possible please do lighten your tones. There is a lot of seemingly angry stuff and I don't think at this point its deserved. Our record shows that we respond to stuff without an internet beating or other deconstructive stuff. If you have a problem with that pm me directly.

Thanks

Mike




mikmykWS -> RE: Has the "RTB no matter what" situation been changed? (1/15/2015 8:34:25 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: jarraya


quote:

ORIGINAL: Sunburn

quote:

ORIGINAL: jarraya
I should add I found the answer in the 1.6 release notes. This hasn't been changed (I would say "fixed).


"Fixed" would imply a bug. A bug would imply the dev team promised A while the program does B. The behavior you desire was never promised by the devs; in fact, we have repeatedly explained why the game currently works in that regard the way it does. You can of course keep asking for your suggestion to be added/implemented, but let's be clear: It is something you want, it's not a bug to fix.

Thanks.


Sunburn - I fully agree with your comment. Hence I put the word "fixed" in quotes. Whilst I believe this feature detracts from the game, it works exactly as the devs want it to. Of course my request remains, and you have been clear before that there was no plan to change it. I just wanted to check and see if maybe this position had changed since and I couldn't find the answer, so I asked.

No more to say here, and thanks for the reply.




This would be an example guys. How on earth is this helpful. [:)]

Looking at J's post history I have my suspicions that his HC experience might be clouding what's going on here and I hope that we're able to do things that can help him move beyond that in the future. This is because we like our customers and hope they have fun with the game and its not a source of angst.[:)]

Hows that for passive aggressive.[:D]

Anyways J this is a warning. Lets not get to a ban by trolling for no good reason.



batek688 -> RE: Has the "RTB no matter what" situation been changed? (1/17/2015 12:39:07 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: mikmyk
This would be an example guys. How on earth is this helpful. [:)]


It gave you an example?

[sm=00000622.gif]



mikmykWS -> RE: Has the "RTB no matter what" situation been changed? (1/17/2015 3:37:10 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: batek688


quote:

ORIGINAL: mikmyk
This would be an example guys. How on earth is this helpful. [:)]


It gave you an example?

[sm=00000622.gif]



Bill talked to these guys via PM today. Thanks for trying help though!

Mike



Tomcat84 -> RE: Has the "RTB no matter what" situation been changed? (1/17/2015 6:08:20 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: jarraya

I sent a strike package out to strike a target. I knew that the package would use 2/3 of their fuel getting to target. So, I place a tanker in a position to top them up on the return, within 1/3 of their fuel remaining. Top them up and they can fly home.

Under the current set up I can not send my planes beyond 1/2 their range without refueling first, despite manually being able to save the planes by correct placement of my tanker.



Hmmm, perhaps something is going wrong. Because it is possible, the only caveat being that you need to have the tanker in the right place before they hit bingo. Load the attached scenario. In it you will see the Middle East (how surprising!) with the USS Nimitz cruising in the Red Sea, a group of hostile buildings in central Iraq, and a KC-46 on station near the Saudi-Iraqi border.

[image]http://bmetz2.home.xs4all.nl/images/command/refuelstrikepatrol-1.jpg[/image]

If you just hit play, two 2-ships of Super Hornets armed with GBU-31s will take off to patrol the area around the buildings. Mission 1 has Use Refuel doctrine set to No, mission 2 has it set to Yes. This makes mission 2 decide to do pre-strike AAR (generally a very smart idea and preferred method in real life).

Mission 2 refuels and proceeds to drop all bombs then RTB, mission 1 realizes they arent gonna make it and turns back bingo, shortly after crossing the Iraqi border.

But I know, you said POST strike AAR. Well, in that case, load the scenario from scratch again and before unpausing, go to the mission editor (F11), select the mission Land Patrol 2 (AAR) and in the Doctrine/ROE/EMCON window set Use Refuel/UNREP doctrine to No.

Hit play and keep a close eye on Victory 3 and 4. All four will start heading out again. After they are north of the tanker (right as they cross the border is a good time) pause and take a look at Victory 3. As you can see, he has about 6600 kgs of total fuel for about 800 miles range to fly left, but he is already over 500 miles from base. Hence, in about 69 miles (niceeee) he will hit bingo.

[image]http://bmetz2.home.xs4all.nl/images/command/refuelstrikepatrol-2.jpg[/image]

Now, go into the mission editor again and set the Refuel doctrine back to Yes for mission 2

[image]http://bmetz2.home.xs4all.nl/images/command/refuelstrikepatrol-3.jpg[/image].

Briefly unpause-pause and you should see the effect this has:

[image]http://bmetz2.home.xs4all.nl/images/command/refuelstrikepatrol-4.jpg[/image]

Range to base (aka tanker) 62nm, range to bingo 526 nm and note that total fuel hasnt changed (still just under 6600 kgs) and distance to fly is still 797 nm.

If you now continue play you will see that shortly (in aforementioned 69nm) Victory 1 and 2 RTB bingo, 3 and 4 press on to strike the target.


[image]http://bmetz2.home.xs4all.nl/images/command/refuelstrikepatrol-5.jpg[/image]


On their way back (as they are RTB winchester), they will get some gas.

[image]http://bmetz2.home.xs4all.nl/images/command/refuelstrikepatrol-6.jpg[/image]

and finally they will land at the Nimitz.


So when does this not work? If you are not able to get the tanker on station by the time they hit their initial bingo. But then you might already be starting to cut it really close.

In short I think a lot is already possible and working well. One big thins is you need to be aware how to manage your Use Refuel doctrine.

Having said all that it does not mean I am opposed to introducing an Ignore Bingo doctrine. It might be useful for last ditch missile evasion, desired suicide missions etc etc

However: it should clearly be default to NO (as in: adhere to bingo is the standard) and perhaps it should have an additional Are you DAMN sure popup when trying to change it.

Also, for me it would not be the highest priority and if it's a bitch to code then maybe forget it. If it is relatively simple to code, then I am not against it, provided it defaults to current behavior, warns the player he is being risky, and also has a good note about it in the respective patch notes.

I hope this post helps some folks get more insight in Command fuel logic and AAR use!





Primarchx -> RE: Has the "RTB no matter what" situation been changed? (1/17/2015 2:05:05 PM)

Thanks, TC. Good analysis!

BTW, I always set my AAR Doctrine to NO and only set it to YES on a unit-by-unit or mission basis, and then only when I command them to refuel, and turning it off when they finish. Call it a 'training scar', as this practice is probably unnecessary in current builds, but in earlier ones I found RTB aircraft zipping over to top off from nearby tankers even if they had sufficient fuel to return home, unnecessarily depleting fuel meant for incoming flights.



mikmykWS -> RE: Has the "RTB no matter what" situation been changed? (1/17/2015 2:24:28 PM)

Thanks Tomcat! This is why our beta team is awesome.

Mike



Page: [1]

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
1.84375